Pros of Tailscale

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger user base
• Offers a managed service option for easier setup and maintenance
• Provides robust client applications for various platforms

Cons of Tailscale

• Closed-source core components limit customization options
• Requires a central coordination server, which may introduce privacy concerns
• Free tier has limitations on number of devices and users

Code Comparison

Tailscale (Go):

func (c *Conn) Close() error {
    c.mu.Lock()
    defer c.mu.Unlock()
    if c.closed {
        return nil
    }
    c.closed = true
    return c.pconn.Close()
}

Netmaker (Go):

func (node *Node) SetLastCheckIn() {
    node.LastCheckIn = time.Now().Unix()
}

Both projects use Go as their primary language. Tailscale's code snippet shows a connection closing method with mutex locking, while Netmaker's example demonstrates a simple node check-in time update. Tailscale's codebase tends to be more complex due to its broader feature set and maturity.

Netmaker focuses on self-hosted, open-source networking solutions, offering more flexibility for customization and control. It may be preferred by users who prioritize complete ownership of their network infrastructure and data. Tailscale, on the other hand, provides a more polished and user-friendly experience, especially for those who don't mind relying on a managed service.

Pros of ZeroTierOne

• More mature and established project with a larger user base
• Offers a centralized management interface for easier network administration
• Supports a wider range of platforms and devices

Cons of ZeroTierOne

• Closed-source core components limit customization options
• Relies on centralized infrastructure, which may raise privacy concerns
• Free tier has limitations on network size and features

Code Comparison

ZeroTierOne (C++):

void Node::processVirtualNetworkFrame(const SharedPtr<Network> &network,const MAC &fromMac,const MAC &toMac,unsigned int etherType,const void *data,unsigned int len)
{
    // Implementation details
}

Netmaker (Go):

func (network *Network) ProcessPacket(packet []byte) error {
    // Implementation details
}

Both projects implement packet processing functions, but ZeroTierOne uses C++ with more detailed parameter passing, while Netmaker uses Go with a simpler function signature. ZeroTierOne's implementation suggests a more complex network model, while Netmaker's approach appears more straightforward.

Pros of Nebula

• Simpler setup and configuration process
• Lightweight and efficient, with lower resource usage
• Better suited for smaller networks and individual users

Cons of Nebula

• Limited centralized management capabilities
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Less scalable for large enterprise networks

Code Comparison

Nebula configuration example:

pki:
  ca: /etc/nebula/ca.crt
  cert: /etc/nebula/host.crt
  key: /etc/nebula/host.key

static_host_map:
  "10.0.0.1": ["192.168.1.10:4242"]

lighthouse:
  am_lighthouse: false
  interval: 60

listen:
  host: 0.0.0.0
  port: 4242

Netmaker configuration example:

server:
  host: "0.0.0.0"
  port: 8081
  restbackend: "on"
  agentbackend: "on"
  masterkey: "secretkey"

database:
  type: "sqlite"
  conn: "/root/netmaker/netmaker.db"

api:
  port: 8081

Both projects aim to create secure overlay networks, but Nebula focuses on simplicity and efficiency, while Netmaker offers more advanced features and centralized management. Nebula is better suited for smaller networks and individual users, while Netmaker excels in large-scale enterprise deployments. The code examples highlight the difference in configuration complexity, with Nebula having a more straightforward setup compared to Netmaker's more detailed configuration options.

Pros of Netbird

• User-friendly web UI for easier network management
• Built-in DNS resolution for simplified peer discovery
• Supports multiple authentication methods (SSO, OIDC)

Cons of Netbird

• Less flexible networking options compared to Netmaker
• Limited support for custom network topologies
• Fewer advanced features for complex enterprise setups

Code Comparison

Netmaker configuration example:

server:
  apiport: "8081"
  masterkey: "secretkey"
  sqlconn: "host=localhost port=5432 user=postgres dbname=netmaker password=password sslmode=disable"

Netbird configuration example:

server:
  grpc_address: ":443"
  http_address: ":80"
  store:
    type: "sqlite"
    sqlite:
      connection_string: "/var/lib/netbird/netbird.db"

Both projects use YAML for configuration, but Netmaker's config focuses on API and database settings, while Netbird's config emphasizes server addresses and storage options. Netmaker's approach may offer more flexibility for advanced setups, while Netbird's configuration appears simpler and more focused on core functionality.

Pros of Netbird

• User-friendly web UI for easier network management
• Built-in DNS resolution for simplified peer discovery
• Supports multiple authentication methods (SSO, OIDC)

Cons of Netbird

• Less flexible networking options compared to Netmaker
• Limited support for custom network topologies
• Fewer advanced features for complex enterprise setups

Code Comparison

Netmaker configuration example:

server:
  apiport: "8081"
  masterkey: "secretkey"
  sqlconn: "host=localhost port=5432 user=postgres dbname=netmaker password=password sslmode=disable"

Netbird configuration example:

server:
  grpc_address: ":443"
  http_address: ":80"
  store:
    type: "sqlite"
    sqlite:
      connection_string: "/var/lib/netbird/netbird.db"

Both projects use YAML for configuration, but Netmaker's config focuses on API and database settings, while Netbird's config emphasizes server addresses and storage options. Netmaker's approach may offer more flexibility for advanced setups, while Netbird's configuration appears simpler and more focused on core functionality.

Pros of innernet

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory safety
• Simpler setup process with fewer dependencies
• More focused on privacy and security with end-to-end encryption

Cons of innernet

• Less feature-rich compared to Netmaker's extensive functionality
• Smaller community and fewer integrations available
• Limited cross-platform support (primarily Linux-focused)

Code Comparison

innernet (Rust):

#[tokio::main]
async fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let config = Config::from_env()?;
    let server = Server::new(config).await?;
    server.run().await
}

Netmaker (Go):

func main() {
    config.InitializeConfig()
    controller.Initialize()
    servercfg := config.GetServerConfig()
    controller.SetupGRPC(servercfg.GRPCConnectPort)
}

Both projects aim to simplify network management, but innernet focuses on simplicity and security, while Netmaker offers more features and flexibility. innernet's Rust implementation may provide better performance, while Netmaker's Go codebase offers wider platform compatibility. The choice between them depends on specific use cases and requirements.